| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards ability to easily do lots of damage types is absolutely an expected outcome of them having a versatile spell list and a lot of spell slots. It is also something I see utilized often in play. At higher levels, hitting weaknesses repeatedly sets an encounter in easy mode.
I also think the monk will benefit from law as a damage type no longer existing. Even if they get nothing in its place (something I think unlikely) the fact that so few creatures were getting made with weakness to it, even some who maybe felt like they should, was only adding a decision point for players that rarely played out to their benefit.
Personally, I think it very likely that material weaknesses get used more in places where the law/chaos damage was relevant and that would definitely benefit the monk.
AFAIK the Monk is the only Unarmed combattant who gets the benefit of precious metal on their unarmed attacks.
Animal Barbarian does not.
Wild Druid does not.
Fighter MC Monk does not.
It is a very big advantage right there. And it cannot be poached.
It probably makes them, at that point in the leveling curve, the one of the best classes at dealing with Golems. These creatures give everyone a bad time, but they often have DR/Adamantine, besides their usual shenanigans, so it's always helpful.
I particularly think it's a welcome benefit. However, it's far from something major.
|
AFAIK the Monk is the only Unarmed combattant who gets the benefit of precious metal on their unarmed attacks.
Animal Barbarian does not.
Wild Druid does not.
Fighter MC Monk does not.
It is a very big advantage right there. And it cannot be poached.
It probably makes them, at that point in the leveling curve, the one of the best classes at dealing with Golems. These creatures give everyone a bad time, but they often have DR/Adamantine, besides their usual shenanigans, so it's always helpful.
I particularly think it's a welcome benefit. However, it's far from something major.
The money you don't put in your special material weapons can be used for something else.
And the other unarmed attackers just don't have the benefit at all.
AFAIK the Monk is the only Unarmed combattant who gets the benefit of precious metal on their unarmed attacks.
Animal Barbarian does not.
Wild Druid does not.
Fighter MC Monk does not.
It is a very big advantage right there. And it cannot be poached.
It probably makes them, at that point in the leveling curve, the one of the best classes at dealing with Golems. These creatures give everyone a bad time, but they often have DR/Adamantine, besides their usual shenanigans, so it's always helpful.
I particularly think it's a welcome benefit. However, it's far from something major.
They don't give everyone a hard time. Fighters hammer them pretty easy.
Giant instinct barbarians do so much damage golem damage resistance isn't noticed.
Monks get Adamantine at level 17. By level 17 other martials do so much damage, those thing are not noticed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards ability to easily do lots of damage types is absolutely an expected outcome of them having a versatile spell list and a lot of spell slots. It is also something I see utilized often in play. At higher levels, hitting weaknesses repeatedly sets an encounter in easy mode.
But they don't do a lot damage, at least no more than a standard caster.
Hitting weaknesses is not controlled by the player. Most intelligent players set up to hit common weaknesses on top of doing a lot of regular damage.
Classes like the Magus can adjust their damage using a focus spell just fine.
It should not be part of this imaginary power budget of the class unless it is controlled by the player.
Monks do weak damage as the levels rise past level 10 or so for a variety of reasons I've clearly explained and are provably true. Their ability to hit certain special material weaknesses doesn't substantially change that unless a campaign is catering to those weaknesses.
If said campaign is catering to those weaknesses, I can guarantee it will include such weapons for martials in the campaign or they will purchase them if the weakness is coming up that often to do the weakness damage and out damage the monk substantially.
So I think the level 20 feat golden body is pretty interesting. It would be hard to argue that it is not strong enough as a feat: fast heal 20 all the time that you have at least 1 hit point and a d12 deadly die on your attacks are probably individually close to capstone feats for many classes, and are more than the deadly strikes gives, also as a level 20 feat.
The issue with feats like this as capstones is that, while both elements fit the monk and are useful, neither ability builds on something the monk has been building towards for the past 19 levels. I think that is the aspect of high level monk feats that “miss” for many players and end up getting passed over looking for MC builds that feel more connected from fear to feat.
Very many of the higher level monk feats are just a brand new thing you can do, rather than an old thing you can now do clearly better. I don’t know if that is that big of a problem, but it can be off putting to some players
Golden Body or Enduring Quickness are both good level 20 feats, though Enduring Quickness benefit you can gain from a haste spell. But it is nice to have it all the time.
Golden Body is the one I would take as that has abilities that are difficult at best to simulate with a spell or other ability.
Impossible Technique would have been cool if it didn't use your reaction which you will often use for something else. Impossible Technique needs more oomph to be a level 20 feat worth taking.
And Deadly Strikes as a level 20 feat is a "What was this designer thinking to make this a level 20 feat? I'd rather take an archetype and a level 10 feat than take this."
So, without getting prescriptive:
There's general agreement that the biggest issues with the Monk right now are power budget comes in too frontloaded, so other classes can poach it easily.
But even if it's frontloaded, the early level power from Stances/FoB only leaves it up to parity with other classes early on, and there's no late-game power spikes of note.
I can't say there's general agreement about that, because I don't know what it means. That first part... how is the monk's power budget frontloaded? what does that mean? What's a power budget anyway? And how do other classes "poach" the monk's power budget?
Reading this stuff, I feel like I felt when I attended the first day of what I thought was a first class in fluid dynamics. I sat through the lecture, then went up to the prof and told him I didn't understand a word of it. Turned out the physics department clerical types had directed me to the wrong class -- this was the *second* semester class. :-)
Let me just throw these thoughts to the ether, since they're the best case scenario, IMO, but would squarely go beyond the Remaster's scope:
I think that each Stance Feat should have a third higher leveled feat that enhanced Flurry of Blows. Stuff that would be only available while in that Stance.
Increasing the damage potential would be just a byproduct, but each Stance's Flurry of Blows would have a mechanic that acted as a "capstone" for each Stance and enabled the Monk to have even more distinct pseudo-Class Paths. All of those feats would be Level 12+, therefore they would be out of Multiclass' reach.
For example, Tiger Stance would get a Rend-like Action added to the Flurry. Dragon Stance could gain Flat bonuses after Strides and Jumps. Crane could allow a Flurry Of Blows after an enemy missed on a Strike. Stuff like that.
Insane and OP stuff? Maybe. Awesome? Absolutely. More than just a straight damage increase? That's my point.
However, I do completely understand that this would represent the introduction of a lot of feats that would be untested and would basically create a feat chain, something that PF2e tries to avoid.
To me, this option is good because it increases the class' power while adding even more flavor. But I certainly wouldn't be against to something like:
[Class Feature Level 14] - Your Strikes deal an extra X damage or 1dX damage dice.
Does every class have to be the King of Combat Damage? Is PF2 all about the combat and nothing else?
Does every class have to be the King of Combat Damage? Is PF2 all about the combat and nothing else?
If the party is dependent on a monk (no fighter/champion) being melee it will be an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does every class have to be the King of Combat Damage? Is PF2 all about the combat and nothing else?
No one is asking for the King of Combat.
An upgrade to their damage mechanic at the same level as other classes in the 10 to 15 range is not asking a lot.
The PF2 designers have done a good job of boosting each martial classes damage mechanics in unique and interesting ways. The monk should have a similar boost.
For the rogue damage boosting is a combination of a the standard increased weapon runes, accuracy increases with easier flanking from feats like Gang Up, improved reaction attacks with an easy trigger like Opportune Riposte, and feats that build upon their sneak attack according to subclass like Precise Debilitations.
Fighter builds upon accuracy becoming Legendary with improved use of Reaction based attacks combined with the ability to create triggers for those attacks like Trip or forced movement.
Barbarian gets rage boosted damage.
Swashbuckler even gets improved Precise Strike damage along with improvements to their finishers.
For some reason the monk did not get these damage enhancement at similar levels. It seems to be an oversight that would be nice to see corrected given the current push in a Remaster seems a good time to do it. In the attempt design this martial class with martial arts and ability variation, there was a loss of sight of the damage boosting capability getting the usual upgrade at the higher levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, without getting prescriptive:
There's general agreement that the biggest issues with the Monk right now are power budget comes in too frontloaded, so other classes can poach it easily.
But even if it's frontloaded, the early level power from Stances/FoB only leaves it up to parity with other classes early on, and there's no late-game power spikes of note.
I can't say there's general agreement about that, because I don't know what it means. That first part... how is the monk's power budget frontloaded? what does that mean? What's a power budget anyway? And how do other classes "poach" the monk's power budget?
Reading this stuff, I feel like I felt when I attended the first day of what I thought was a first class in fluid dynamics. I sat through the lecture, then went up to the prof and told him I didn't understand a word of it. Turned out the physics department clerical types had directed me to the wrong class -- this was the *second* semester class. :-)
Good thing you got here for the first lesson: "be like water" (ง`_´)ง
I'm trying to summarize what I believe is everyone's points in this thread:
1. The great things about the Monk come early, and the class feels really good before level 10:
- Flurry of Blows: for obvious reasons
- Stances: compare them to other Level 1 feats from other classes, there's no Lv1 feat that provides this level of power (or Monastic Weaponry for that matter)
2. The things the Monk receives from later levels are situationally good, not universally good, so the class starts losing luster after level 10:
- Movement speed: battlefields don't always allow you to exploit this, ways to use this with more versatility cost Class Feats (Dancing Leaf, Water Step, etc.)
- Resistance bypass: This is by definition situational – really good in those situations, but not something that will come up constantly
3. Multiclass makes it easy for other classes to poach the great early level features of the Monk:
- Stances can be picked up at Level ~4
- FoB can be picked up at Level 10
4. This makes classes with stronger late-game features very competitive against the Monk in whats supposed to be its niche. Fighter is mentioned quite a bit in this thread, as Legendary Proficiency seems much more appealing than Mystic Strikes and Movement Speed due to how universally applicable it is
I feel you either:
a) Believe the bonus speed and resistance bypass are strong enough to warrant keeping the status quo
b) Believe they aren't, and maybe the class should get a bit more love around level 8 or 10 to keep its identity
As for power budget, each class certainly has its own and its own way to dole it out.
For example, the 'Thurge has a strong chassis and weak feats; each class gets a defensive boost at the same level; each class gets offensive proficiency boosts at the same level; etc.
The Monk, baseline at Level 1, without any feats, is much weaker than a Fighter. Once you pick a feat with both, they are about as strong as each other, because Monk feats at Level 1 are pretty strong.
|
|
AFAIK the Monk is the only Unarmed combattant who gets the benefit of precious metal on their unarmed attacks.
Animal Barbarian does not.
Wild Druid does not.
Fighter MC Monk does not.
It is a very big advantage right there. And it cannot be poached.
The big difference here is that all of those other options deal SIGNIFICANTLY more damage with their strikes which bypasses the need for special materials... and that bonus damage applies to all creatures not just those rare occasions where X or Y special material would be benifictial.
When I look at a level 20 monk using dragon lash attacks with golden body and doing a 2 action one-inch punch followed up by a flurry of blows, I calculate a Damage per round vs an AC 45 (level 20 standard) at 61.65.
This isn't factoring in any MC damage bonuses, it isn't factoring in any frightened shenanigans with dragon's roar, no resistances or weaknesses, no hero points, not even tacking on Ki strike to the flurry (which monks are going to be doing a lot of in the remaster). The only rune included was the greater flaming rune from the capstone dragon handwraps, but I didn't add anything for the persistent fire damage on a crit either. I also didn't ever add in the +1 circumstance bonus for backswing, which would have boosted the damage a couple of points if I would have added that in.
So how bad is 61.65 (a low estimate for a damage focused monk) compared to other martial for damage spending only their own resources (so no spell buffs) attacking with options that can be repeated indefinitely? I really have no idea.
I did not factor in perfected form. I will look at that again when I get home, because that does significantly boost both 2 and 3 action one inch punch. I am not sure if it will be enough to make 3 action better than 2 plus flurry though, but I will look at it.
Perfected form one inch punch into ki strike/flurry does fantastic actually. So long as you never use buffs or debuffs, it will outdamage a lot of stuff. That's a pretty big caveat though, so I'm pretty sure it ultimately doesn't matter.
Rerunning my math with perfected form also makes factoring in backswing a lot easier (the first attack is always going to be a hit), the damage ended up 84.9975, or 85. I am curious how that compares against other martials in the AC 45 with no spell buffing.
3 action One inch punch = 80.6
2 action 1 inch punch +FoB = 84.9975 with chance of stun
Again, this is with the Dragon Handwraps apex item, so only counting greater Flaming rune, and not adding any additional damage for potential persistent fire.
Vs AC 45 is a good target number for the monk (as in the effect on damage for perfected form is pretty high). Against AC 47 the numbers go much lower, but you might then try something different against a foe like that. Much lower than 45 increases the crit chance a lot, which gets gonzo with the deadly d12, but if you got down (through buffing and debuffing) to a 41, than making more attacks and not one inch punching would be a better course of actions.
If you crit on 3 action one inch punch, the damage is ridiculous though, and since you can only fail if a 10 doesn't hit, it makes it not a bad "aim for the stars" move against a tough foe, if you can buff or debuff to hit on that 10, so that at least it is a gamble with no real downside.
10d10+3d12+1d6+13+2d10 persistent fire damage on a crit is hard to top.
When I look at a level 20 monk using dragon lash attacks with golden body and doing a 2 action one-inch punch followed up by a flurry of blows, I calculate a Damage per round vs an AC 45 (level 20 standard) at 61.65.
This isn't factoring in any MC damage bonuses, it isn't factoring in any frightened shenanigans with dragon's roar, no resistances or weaknesses, no hero points, not even tacking on Ki strike to the flurry (which monks are going to be doing a lot of in the remaster). The only rune included was the greater flaming rune from the capstone dragon handwraps, but I didn't add anything for the persistent fire damage on a crit either. I also didn't ever add in the +1 circumstance bonus for backswing, which would have boosted the damage a couple of points if I would have added that in.
So how bad is 61.65 (a low estimate for a damage focused monk) compared to other martial for damage spending only their own resources (so no spell buffs) attacking with options that can be repeated indefinitely? I really have no idea.
I'm not sure why you're using that combo since it is not the strongest damage combo for the monk.
Level 20 has so many combinations.
I was running a Fighter Champion MC Cleric MC with a maul buffed nearly every fight with heroism. At level 20 he would have Opportunist and he already had Combat Reflexes. I would knock down so many enemies and get AoO reaction attacks that there would be rounds of wrecked enemies with rare exception.
I ran a Giant Instinct Barbarian with an Ogre hook with Whirlwind Strike. It reached the point the Swashbuckler and Archer asked if they needed to be there. My average critical hit was 130 points of damage and I had DR and pounded through resistance. When you pick up level 19 Devastator, you start thinking of damage resistance as not existing.
Thief Rogue picks up Opportune Backstab, Gang up, and Precise Debilitations.
There is a lot to calculate at level 20. And group interactions for other classes and battlefield spread can affect a lot of things. The Giant Barbarian can turn huge and attack with 15 foot reach extending from a 15 foot square with Whirlwind Attack. When that works, the damage is pretty insane. It worked quite a lot. Even two or three targets and you get two or three basically no MAP attacks.
This is what I'm trying to illustrate. It's not just the raw damage, it's all the feats that allow the enhanced use of your attacks either from reaction attacks or some crazy ability like Whirlwind with a Giant Barbarian with Devastator and Unstoppable Juggernaut.
Then there is the Magus crit fisher. It's feast or famine for the Magus. But their feast damage is nuts. No one does this easier than the Starlit Span archer with no concern for AoOs due to range. I'm running a Starlit Span Magus right now, his crits at level 4 are 50 to 70 points or so. A level 20 Starlit Span Magus damage per round I'm interested to see.
Because the monk is so simple and front-loaded, it's easy to analyze their damage. When the monk is still flurrying or using a one inch punch, the other classes are doing some truly insane things.
The average critical hit on the 3 action one inch punch is over 160. For two actions it is about 120. And that is the average.
I had not applied perfected form to the numbers in the post you responded to. Against most targets, the monk can’t miss with their first strike, it actually makes two action one inch punch very strong.
You should probably add in Ki Form damage to the monk as well given that is a high value feat the monk takes at level 18 which lasts a minute when the focus point is spent. Ki Form is one of the best monk feats.
I wonder what a Wolf Monk flanked with Sneak Attack in Ki Form using a 2 action one inch punch followed by a flurry would do given their attacks are agile.
The average critical hit on the 3 action one inch punch is over 160. For two actions it is about 120. And that is the average.
I had not applied perfected form to the numbers in the post you responded to. Against most targets, the monk can’t miss with their first strike, it actually makes two action one inch punch very strong.
A 2 action one inch punch at level 20 with a Major Striking Weapon in Ki Form.
That would be:
4d10 Major Striking Fist + 4d10 One inch punch +1d6 Ki Form +7 Str + 6 spec = 60 damage per strike
Then on a crit double the base strike damage 120 plus 3d12 deadly 140 point crit for a 2 action strike absent any runes.
Then flurry with a MAP of -5 and -10.
What if I did this with Wolf Style Rogue MC with flank.
4d8 Major Striking Fist 4d8 One Inch Punch + 1d6 ki form +1d6+2 sneak attack and backstabber +6 Str + 6 greater spec + 57 for a 2 action strike.
Crit would be 114 + 3d12 deadly for 134.
Followed by a Flurry -4 and -8.
How would this compare in an actual group fight with other martials? I might play this out and track it sometime. I don't like the locked in action sequence as 3 action attack rounds are extremely rare for any martial including the monk. That is why reaction attacks are so valuable because they occur outside the normal round that is taken up by movement and other abilities, but it might be a decent boss killing combo if you can stand and attack for at least a few rounds.
wolf form loses out 3 damage off the top for being a d8 instead of a d10. If the enemy is frightened, not only is the dragon monk probably fighting with a +3 to attack (from having dread striker and frightened) they also get an additional +4 to damage.
Ki form would add more damage. My build needed the reach, but if I was going just pure damage, then Ki form would probably add to it. Perfected Form + 1 inch punch is the missing piece of the puzzle for DPR for folks trying to maximize monk damage. I think people were focused on the attack more, but that is not really what the monk is doing to maximize damage at higher level.
The monk is also very good at bypassing Resistances and triggering weaknesses. With the remaster rules change to refocusing, monks are pretty much all going to want to get 3 ki powers.
Also, the 2 action one inch punch that can't miss is fine as a 2 action activity. The monk's movement should minimally be 60ft by end game. They really shouldn't need to spend more than one action moving, but if they do have to spend 2, they can do so and still get their Flurry in, potentially stunning. The monk is excellently dynamic and not stuck in one set action routine.
wolf form loses out 3 damage off the top for being a d8 instead of a d10. If the enemy is frightened, not only is the dragon monk probably fighting with a +3 to attack (from having dread striker and frightened) they also get an additional +4 to damage.
Ki form would add more damage. My build needed the reach, but if I was going just pure damage, then Ki form would probably add to it. Perfected Form + 1 inch punch is the missing piece of the puzzle for DPR for folks trying to maximize monk damage. I think people were focused on the attack more, but that is not really what the monk is doing to maximize damage at higher level.
The monk is also very good at bypassing Resistances and triggering weaknesses. With the remaster rules change to refocusing, monks are pretty much all going to want to get 3 ki powers.
So you would use Dragon's Roar first foregoing the flurry for the first round? As the requirement for the Circumstance Bonus for Dragon's Roar requires that you roar.
The Barbarian has Devastator at level 19, they hammer through any physical resistance. Damage is so high at that level, no one much worries about it.
This damage per round calculation you're using is white room math. Which is why I would track this. Real PF2 combat doesn't operate on damage per round or even close to it.
PF2 combat has a lot of moving parts. Reaction attacks are absolutely huge for quite a few classes that create big damage spikes.
Right now you're calculating a specific attack sequence that requires 2 to 3 actions to execute. To me it looks like one that would operate mostly on bosses if you had the chance to stand and attack them for at least 2 rounds.
To set this up, you have to do the following:
Round 1:
1. Move to target. This could be done by pre-buffing haste by someone that goes before you so the Quickened Condition applies at the start of your turn.
2. If movement is from haste action, Dragon's Roar.
3. One Inch punch target.
First round is done.
Other people in party go. Is target still alive? Or is target dead? Because something not often discussed in these types of threads is an entire party attacking a monster often leads to it dead very quickly requiring movement to a new target.
That means if the target is alive, it may be a boss which would have a higher than 45 AC and a big old hit point pool.
So what do you think you're fighting using this attack sequence? Imagine the combat as it will occur on the field of battle. Distance to open battle. What is the rest of your party doing? How are you setting up?
When I first came to PF2, I was sort of using Ctrickings tool because it reminded me of a tool from WoW. You calculate your DPS and it generally worked.
But PF2 is not WoW, not a video game. Combat in real time doesn't meet expected damage per action or per round numbers on Ctrickings calculator for a variety of reasons.
That is why I stopped using it and went to damage tracking. That allowed you to see how the damage truly built up over multiple combats and you could see why. The raw damage numbers were a fairly small part of the "why"?
So to get back to the question: how do you picture this damage action sequence occurring on a PF2 battlefield and who are you with in the group? What are they doing? Where is this action sequence ideal?
I see it as ideal against a boss mob that will withstand attacks from a group for more than one round. Mooks die to quickly for this to last long. I might work against a mini-boss type of creature, a leader of mooks but not quite a weak mook.
The reason I like the monk (and fighter and to a lesser extent rogues) as martials in PF2 is because they are so dynamic and able to have lots of things they can do in a combat. Building up a character to do the same thing every round bores me.
Many people here have been arguing the monk is bad at combat in higher levels because their vision of the monk is "just make all the attacks."
I think that is a bad way to play a monk because it ignores much of their tool kit and they don't really have the accuracy to pull it off. Flurry is nice because it means any round you can only make one attack, you are going to be able to make 2, but a good selection of Ki spells and situational feats means you have a lot of options.
First round you are dropping into your stance. Moving towards enemies is usually a bad idea. It is better for the whole party to probably move into cover, or into a patch of difficult terrain, or some other tactical set up for the first round that will also make it difficult for enemies to step away if they choose to rush you. My own monk is a MC caster. Dropping into a stance and casting a spell is a great first round. I actually like the add on to one inch punch that pushes enemies away. I like playing with some casters who do battlefield control and not playing the martials all try to trip one enemy and then stand around and wail on that one. At higher levels, this strategy has not worked super well in some of my tables because the tougher fights are the ones with multiple enemies and a tripped foe still offers flanking to everyone else. Bunched up PCs trying to surround an enemy also usually makes for an easy path to the back line.
I like that the monk has a strong nova game if an enemy ends a turn next to them. I like dragon's roar when fighting multiple enemies that often have trouble hitting a monk, especially while frightened. Basically I just like options and the monk has them. At high levels that perfected form really leans into setting up your power moves instead your flurry, so it is good to try to get both and not rely on just one.
The reason I like the monk (and fighter and to a lesser extent rogues) as martials in PF2 is because they are so dynamic and able to have lots of things they can do in a combat. Building up a character to do the same thing every round bores me.
Many people here have been arguing the monk is bad at combat in higher levels because their vision of the monk is "just make all the attacks."
I think that is a bad way to play a monk because it ignores much of their tool kit and they don't really have the accuracy to pull it off. Flurry is nice because it means any round you can only make one attack, you are going to be able to make 2, but a good selection of Ki spells and situational feats means you have a lot of options.
First round you are dropping into your stance. Moving towards enemies is usually a bad idea. It is better for the whole party to probably move into cover, or into a patch of difficult terrain, or some other tactical set up for the first round that will also make it difficult for enemies to step away if they choose to rush you. My own monk is a MC caster. Dropping into a stance and casting a spell is a great first round. I actually like the add on to one inch punch that pushes enemies away. I like playing with some casters who do battlefield control and not playing the martials all try to trip one enemy and then stand around and wail on that one. At higher levels, this strategy has not worked super well in some of my tables because the tougher fights are the ones with multiple enemies and a tripped foe still offers flanking to everyone else. Bunched up PCs trying to surround an enemy also usually makes for an easy path to the back line.
I like that the monk has a strong nova game if an enemy ends a turn next to them. I like dragon's roar when fighting multiple enemies that often have trouble hitting a monk, especially while frightened. Basically I just like options and the monk has them. At high levels that perfected form really leans into setting up your power moves instead your flurry,...
That is not the argument, at least not from me.
The monk is mostly a good class that could use a damage boost to its main damage dealers much like other classes get in that 11 to 20 range.
It needs a slight boost to its main damage dealing powers at around level 10 to 15.
The monk is not the only class with this issue. The ranger has a similar issue due to the Hunt Prey action tax and the drop off in the capability of animal companions. The swashbuckler has the panache generation problem. There are these little holes in certain martial classes that cause their efficiency aka damage to drop off in certain level ranges where that should not happen as other classes are starting to accelerate damage substantially along with additive versatility.
The monk is not a "bad combat class." It's a pretty good class with a lot of variability that could use a slight boost to whatever Paizo considers its main damage dealing abilities to keep par to what it's damage is like around level 10 to what it is around level 11 to 20. I don't know the exact demarcation point because different classes do things different ways. The monk has this kind of drop off after level 11 as other classes are starting to really improve while the monk stays pretty static in its attack sequence.
Let me make this clear: The monk is not a bad class, not like the wizard or witch which have some real problems with the overall chassis.
The monk needs a slight tweak in the upper levels. Not a huge tweak, but a slight tweak to keep it on par.
I just think people are looking to the wrong place for damage boosting the monk. Perfected form is a gonzo damage booster at level 19. Ki form is there at 18, golden body at 20. The monk is also boosting their spell proficiency to master at 17. And then are also boosting a lot of defenses. They have a lot going on in their chassis.
I just think people are looking to the wrong place for damage boosting the monk. Perfected form is a gonzo damage booster at level 19. Ki form is there at 18, golden body at 20. The monk is also boosting their spell proficiency to master at 17. And then are also boosting a lot of defenses. They have a lot going on in their chassis.
Stop and think about other classes. How they build. They get all their non-combat stuff and defenses along with their combat boosts.
You're looking at the monk solely without thinking about other classes. I've played nearly all of these classes or DMed them. Everyone gets crazy stuff as they level.
Barbarian:
1. Mighty Rage at level 11. An action economy booster. For a Giant Instinct Barbarian, this allows them to Rage and Titan's Stature for one action. Then Sudden Charge immediately setting them up next round for Whirlwind Attack.
2. Level 20: Unstoppable Juggernaut. You get Con+3 Resist All.
3. Devastator: Reduced any physical resistance by 10.
4. Legendary Fortitude saves with Con as a major stat for your class.
5. 12 hit points a level.
6. Attack of Opportunity as a feat with Immense reach.
Fighter:
1. Legendary Proficiency in all weapon attacks.
2. Combat reflexes allowing you to use reaction attacks well at level 10.
3. Opportunity giving you a reaction attack on every turn.
4. Bravery: reducing frightened immediately by 1.
5. Battlefield Surveyor: +2 to initiative and Master perception proficiency.
6. Heavy Armor master with Armor specialization.
7. Combat Flexibility: Change two feats daily as needed.
Rogue:
1. Sneak attack to 4d6 with up to 6d6 or weakness 5 to weapon attacks at level 10.
2. Skill feat and skill up every level. Up to six Legendary skills.
3. Legendary in Perception and Reflex saves
4. Gang Up for easy flanking.
5. Opportune Backstab: one of the easiest reaction attacks to activate.
6. Blank Slate: You can't see me unless you can counteract level 10 or higher.
7. Hidden Paragon at level 20: I'm a ghost.
I don't know why you don't trust the assessment of other people with more experience. I don't make these judgments absent evidence. I play this game a ton and have tried a bunch of classes or tracked them in play as I DM a lot too.
I'm speaking just from a player perspective. I'm speaking also as a DM who likes to see classes well balanced against each other in play. Not white room math. Not theoretical. But in play across all levels.
When I see a problem with certain classes, I vocalize it here on these forums for hopefully at some point remediation by the designers. Not for my sake, but for the betterment of the overall game.
I have a player who likes to play monks. It's one of his favorite classes. I have played a monk here or there, but it's not favorite class as I like casters more.
I tracked damage for the monk in a group with a fighter and ranger archer. The monk was falling far behind the fighter past level 11 or so. Drop was substantial and noticeable by the player. This was after I went with the designer recommendation for Heaven's Thunder. Pre-Heaven's Thunder reduction and the monk with Heaven's Thunder was probably the top damage dealer in the game.
I've also tracked damage with a Dragon Style monk with a fighter Polearm reach user and a champion.
A wolf monk in a group with a Bully Rogue and Fighter greatsword wielder.
In all instances the drop off in comparative damage occurred around level 10. This occurred without the monk gaining any substantial advantage to make up for the loss.
The main class that I don't argue requires a damage boost is the Champion. The champion is not a top damage dealer. But it's defensive abilities and boosts those defensive abilities are substantial enough to offset the needed for increased damage. Champions are a real pain to deal with in a group situation, noticeably so. And not due to their damage. Their defensive abilities are immensely strong. Their Champion's reaction scales well with feats including gaining an additional reaction for Champion's Reaction with good scaling. Even the Neutral Good champion is difficult to deal with in a group.
If the monk's role is not damage, then I'm not sure what their purpose is. They do not have sufficient boosts to defensive abilities to warrant being like a champion. They do not have sufficient offensive abilities to compete with classes like the fighter, rogue, and barbarian.
These classes also gain control abilities, especially the fighter, and the ability to enhance damage while using their control abilities.
This all adds up to a superior class to the monk at doing what the monk seems designed to do: damage with some control or similar variability.
All I want as a DM and player is relatively equal options, so that a player playing a monk doesn't feel like he made some lesser choice because the designers missed some kind of damage booster in the 11 to 18 to range given maybe they are ok at 19 and 20 with Perfected Form and Golden Body. I can't speak to 19 and 20 because those levels we haven't reached on every character and they don't last long.
When I post, I post primarily as a DM with an interest in class balance on behalf of my players who like different classes. Some of them have real problems:
Since this thread is the monk thread, the problem with the monk is an effectiveness aka damage black hole in the 11 to 18 range as I'm giving the benefit of the doubt at 19 and 20.
I could easily talk about the wizard or witch which have far bigger problems. Or the ranger when Hunt Prey becomes a headache for a variety of reasons from the action tax to the damage blow through issue and target switching within rounds. To the panache generation issue the swashbuckler deals with that is a far worse and needs to be fixed soon problem.
The monk's issue with the damage drop off is clearly provable. It doesn't help if one guy is trying to make it seem like it doesn't exist because he found a good combination at 19 and 20. It doesn't help at all.
Just like it doesn't help to claim the wizard is fine, when it is provably weaker class with real problems with weak class feats and boring, under-developed class chassis.
Most of want to see PF2 made into the best possible game that is well-balanced and fun to play for all players choosing any class across nearly all levels. That's why I feel the need to include the monk's damage issues in that 11 to 18 or so range.
Deriven. I have been playing pathfinder second effusion since the play test. You have played a few more higher level characters than I have, but I also remember when you were convinced that casters were bad.
You had not even considered the interplay of one inch punch and perfected form when you were making claims that monks are not good at high level play, which is probably one of the reasons why Michael Sayre, who was involved in the original design of the class, was defending their martial capacity. When tripping requires a two action activity to be reliable and use a fighter’s attack bonus, and is not automatic on crits, the prone spamming fest is going to fall a peg. It will still be very good, but it will not nearly be the same kind of automatic best tactic in the game. I see players get their characters killed fairly often by trying to play the mob and swarm tactic. As a GM, I killed a 12 level Character last night from this very problem. Typically I only play one game a week because I am running 2 or 3 more.
The monk is a good damage dealer at high levels. They are a hybrid class that is a bit of a kitchen sink. Trying to over specialize with them result in disregarding a lot of their class features. Trying to over specialize causes many players grief with many classes in PF2. It is not how the game is designed.
I am concerned about the wizard’s focus spell situation with the remaster making those much more important and spammable, but I think James Case is on it and we’ll see good returns. I have played and seen played high level wizards. There is a big difference in the number of top level spell slots between a Druid and a spell blending wizard. My games tend to feature a closer to 50/50 role play to combat ratio, so feats like silent spell and convincing illusion get used often and powerfully. I had a player get mad the first time he tried to cast detect magic in a tavern and got the party thrown out because the barkeep didn’t want any trouble in his bar, but they ended up multiclassing into wizard to get conceal spell when they realized how much it enables using magic without drawing attention to yourself as a caster.
Some options in the game might be for other play styles than the ones you enjoy. But when you make claims like “monks are bad at damage” but then don’t offer any numbers to back up a martial class significantly out performing a monk in round by round damage, it is necessary to counter these “statements of fact” about the class. You have tried to play high level control minks and been disappointed in their damage output. That is a fair statement about your experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, one inch punch into flurry is good, but only in parties so low skill they can't stack to a net +3 to hit against an equal level opponent. Given how easy it is to get de/buffs going, particularly on the first attack of a turn, touting it like it's some amazing technique is comical, at best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know why you don't trust the assessment of other people with more experience. I don't make these judgments absent evidence. I play this game a ton and have tried a bunch of classes or tracked them in play as I DM a lot too.
Yes but it just insulting to the rest of us when you assume we don't. I suspect the majority of the people on this forum have been regular players for years.
When I see a problem with certain classes, I vocalize it here on these forums for hopefully at some point remediation by the designers. Not for my sake, but for the betterment of the overall game.
I'll give you that but the one thing you aren't good at is listening, or at least understanding other people's points. There is some very simple stuff that you are just not getting. You also have a couple of house rules that are odd.
The foundation of our society is freedom of speech, and the implied tolerance for different points of view. You are doing the first but not the second.
I tracked damage for the monk in a group with a fighter and ranger archer. The monk was falling far behind the fighter past level 11 or so. Drop was substantial and noticeable by the player.
Totally agree. The optimsed monk builds drop off from level 10 because they miss out on Extra Reactions, to hit reductions from things like Agile Grace, and their best feature Flurry of Blows can be poached but can't be built on further.
But damage is not the only thing Monks are built for. Monks are still somewhat valid.
Deriven. I have been playing pathfinder second effusion since the play test. You have played a few more higher level characters than I have, but I also remember when you were convinced that casters were bad.
You had not even considered the interplay of one inch punch and perfected form when you were making claims that monks are not good at high level play, which is probably one of the reasons why Michael Sayre, who was involved in the original design of the class, was defending their martial capacity. When tripping requires a two action activity to be reliable and use a fighter’s attack bonus, and is not automatic on crits, the prone spamming fest is going to fall a peg. It will still be very good, but it will not nearly be the same kind of automatic best tactic in the game. I see players get their characters killed fairly often by trying to play the mob and swarm tactic. As a GM, I killed a 12 level Character last night from this very problem. Typically I only play one game a week because I am running 2 or 3 more.
The monk is a good damage dealer at high levels. They are a hybrid class that is a bit of a kitchen sink. Trying to over specialize with them result in disregarding a lot of their class features. Trying to over specialize causes many players grief with many classes in PF2. It is not how the game is designed.
I am concerned about the wizard’s focus spell situation with the remaster making those much more important and spammable, but I think James Case is on it and we’ll see good returns. I have played and seen played high level wizards. There is a big difference in the number of top level spell slots between a Druid and a spell blending wizard. My games tend to feature a closer to 50/50 role play to combat ratio, so feats like silent spell and convincing illusion get used often and powerfully. I had a player get mad the first time he tried to cast detect magic in a tavern and got the party thrown out because the barkeep didn’t want any trouble in his bar, but they ended up multiclassing...
Exactly. I changed my mind on casters because the evidence did not prove me right. I was wrong, so I changed my opinion. I am a very evidence driven person.
Monks I was never much against or for. I am stating what the evidence has shown over time. They have an issue in the 11 to 18 range in
effectiveness drop off.
It's also why I went from using Ctrickings tool and doing DPR or DPA averages because it wasn't working out in the gameplay. So I went to tracking and trying to figure out what was throwing off the numbers.
I like evidence as once you accumulate it, you can start to see issues and fix them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You had not even considered the interplay of one inch punch and perfected form when you were making claims that monks are not good at high level play
We deliberately did the flurry fighter comparison because it is more directly equivalent and easier to make. The monk loses and it is NOT close. The big weapon AoO fighter is a different build.
which is probably one of the reasons why Michael Sayre, who was involved in the original design of the class, was defending their martial capacity.
Overall the Monk is OK. But Michael is wrong here IF what he meant was damage output. It doesn't matter who says it wrong is wrong. Michael does some good stuff but he is not always right even in this domain. He just has the luxury of making himself right in the next release.
When tripping requires a two action activity to be reliable and use a fighter’s attack bonus, and is not automatic on crits, the prone spamming fest is going to fall a peg. It will still be very good, but it will not nearly be the same kind of automatic best tactic in the game.
It has problems like anything else. Putting a save on the critical will bring it down only a little but it is still going to crush monks.
I see players get their characters killed fairly often by trying to play the mob and swarm tactic.
Any tactic can be played poorly.
The monk is a good damage dealer at high levels. They are a hybrid class that is a bit of a kitchen sink.
That is a no and then a yes. I agree it is not totally fair to compare the Monk just on Damage output.
Trying to over specialize with them result in disregarding a lot of their class features. Trying to over specialize causes many players grief with many classes in PF2. It is not how the game is designed.
Most party based RPGs reward specialisation. PF2 is no different. It depends what you mean by over specialise but this is mostly wrong.
According to crit king’s damage tool, the 84 damage (which is not even fully optimized, nor factoring in any tactics or buffing) is a little ahead of a 2hander fighter making 3 attacks, that seems pretty good for a supposedly sub-optimal damage class.
I do understand that fighters get additional attacks from attacks of opportunity. I have played that fighter. It is good, without a doubt. The knock down actions eat ito your damage, but the control factor and provocation from standing are excellent.
In a fight against each other though, the monk is going to kip up and probably not be flat-footed while prone. They can probably move 60 to 70 ft with an action, which will require magic support for the fighter to keep up with, and the monk can high tail it for a round or two to keep healing with fast heal. Building to fight a fighter, I’d probably go legendary reflex and master fort, and then have master will from uncanny acumen.
Flurry of blows is a good tool for a couple of classes, but for the monk it really isn’t about getting in the most total attacks, they are not accurate enough over map for that, but about being able to do a lot of other cool stuff in a round and still make 2 effective attacks almost every round.
I don’t think monk is the best class ever, and it has some sore points, but they are being blown out of proportion by focusing on less optimized builds. It is important in looking at making changes to fully understand design intention decisions.
I don't know why you don't trust the assessment of other people with more experience. I don't make these judgments absent evidence. I play this game a ton and have tried a bunch of classes or tracked them in play as I DM a lot too.Yes but it just insulting to the rest of us when you assume we don't. I suspect the majority of the people on this forum have been regular players for years.
When I see a problem with certain classes, I vocalize it here on these forums for hopefully at some point remediation by the designers. Not for my sake, but for the betterment of the overall game.I'll give you that but the one thing you aren't good at is listening, or at least understanding other people's points. There is some very simple stuff that you are just not getting. You also have a couple of house rules that are odd.
The foundation of our society is freedom of speech, and the implied tolerance for different points of view. You are doing the first but not the second.
I tracked damage for the monk in a group with a fighter and ranger archer. The monk was falling far behind the fighter past level 11 or so. Drop was substantial and noticeable by the player.Totally agree. The optimsed monk builds drop off from level 10 because they miss out on Extra Reactions, to hit reductions from things like Agile Grace, and their best feature Flurry of Blows can be poached but can't be built on further.
But damage is not the only thing Monks are built for. Monks are still somewhat valid.
I do listen. Not sure why you think I don't.
I've listened to you and agreed with you plenty of times. With you and I it is often disagreements of degrees.
One thing I'm not good at is anecdotal evidence or disagreements on open-ended rules definitions. I don't like that. Rules should be written in a more concise fashion, though I do understand in a ruleset this size that is difficult across the entire ruleset.
I also like to see numbers in play, not theoretical. But how does this work in play on a round by round basis.
Yes. I do employ house rules, not many for martials, but definitely for casters. My house rules have almost no effect on martial damage dealing save for a class like the Swashbuckler.
My caster house rules do make casters a great deal better. I did play casters out of the box to get the initial feel for them. Casters are mostly fine without my house rules save for the preparation casters like the witch and wizard that are terrible without my house rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to crit king’s damage tool, the 84 damage (which is not even fully optimized, nor factoring in any tactics or buffing) is a little ahead of a 2hander fighter making 3 attacks, that seems pretty good for a supposedly sub-optimal damage class.
I do understand that fighters get additional attacks from attacks of opportunity. I have played that fighter. It is good, without a doubt. The knock down actions eat ito your damage, but the control factor and provocation from standing are excellent.
In a fight against each other though, the monk is going to kip up and probably not be flat-footed while prone. They can probably move 60 to 70 ft with an action, which will require magic support for the fighter to keep up with, and the monk can high tail it for a round or two to keep healing with fast heal. Building to fight a fighter, I’d probably go legendary reflex and master fort, and then have master will from uncanny acumen.
Flurry of blows is a good tool for a couple of classes, but for the monk it really isn’t about getting in the most total attacks, they are not accurate enough over map for that, but about being able to do a lot of other cool stuff in a round and still make 2 effective attacks almost every round.
I don’t think monk is the best class ever, and it has some sore points, but they are being blown out of proportion by focusing on less optimized builds. It is important in looking at making changes to fully understand design intention decisions.
The monk don't need much of a bump. The monk is an overall well designed class. It's damage dealing in that 11 to 18 range needs something similar to what the other martial classes get.
That's why I recommended building on Flurry or Ki Strike, something they use a bit more.
I would even be happy with slight action economy boosters like Stance Savant becoming an innate monk ability, so as they rise in level they become better at dropping into a stance.
With the barbarian they get the following types of improvements:
1. Rage goes up in a linear fashion.
2. Mighty Rage enhances action economy allowing them to bring online their rage abilities faster like doing Titan's Stature or Draconic Wings while activating their rage.
Stuff like that that the monk doesn't seem to get without using a feat resource.
Why not something like:
1. Flurry of blows reduces the hit roll at around level 11.
2. When the the monk gets Weapon Master they are able to shift into a stance as a free action at the start of their turn.
Little things that naturally progress as part of the class chassis that improve on what the monk does for its main damage dealing would be fine by me.
That's one of the things I found with damage tracking versus the white room math. How much something like one action improvement can greatly improve the entire class's ability to do damage.
A ranger is an example of this. At early levels that extra d8 precision is great on Hunt Prey because you can't do much else.
At later levels Hunt Prey is annoying. You find if you're fighting multiple mooks and you just crit hit a guy with Hunted Shot with the first arrow, suddenly you're stuck with this second attack that you shoot at a guy that is already dead. So you either take Double Prey or pay an action tax to switch targets, which limits what feats you can take. Even after you take down one target, you want the Double Prey active again in case you take down another target that the party has worn down. It's makes your rounds and damage very bumpy.
Where as someone like the barbarian might have a lot of blow through damage because their crits are insane, but they can switch targets easily without an action tax other than movement. The giant instinct barbarian with immense reach can hit stuff all over most battlefields, so they often don't even have to move.
I'm not going to tell anyone to not play the monk they suck so bad. That would be a lie. I'd rather see during this Remaster a slight bump up in damage dealing capacity that fits what the monk does to keep them on par as other martials start to skyrocket.
But if they don't get around to it, I'll be fine if they spend time fixing the Swashbuckler who needs more help than the monk or tinkering with the Ranger's Hunt Prey a bit, make things like Double Prey and such an innate class ability if they keep it around.
I don't even know what they can do to make the Investigator appealing. I guess leave it as that nice class for specific types of campaigns.